SEVENTY THIRTY LTD V TEREZA BURKI
Extract from the Judgment
Words complained of
1. There is no dispute that during April 2016, Ms Burki wrote and published online a Google review of 70/30’s services.
2. There was no evidence before me as to how such a review is accessed, but I think that I am entitled to take judicial notice of the process as I understand it from my own experience, since it is a commonplace of modern online activity. My understanding is that Google reviews are reviews of the performance of a business which internet users can access if they make a search on Google against the name of the business. A box appears beside the results of the search, summarising the nature of the business, giving its address, and offering a link to its website, as well as a link to reviews. Ms Burki’s review will have been visible as one of a number of other reviews, but (as I understand it) only if the user clicks on the link to the reviews. The page provided for me in the trial bundle is headed ‘Exclusive Matchmaking – Seventy Thirty’. The address of the business is given, and under that appears the number 3.9, followed by four stars and ‘8 reviews’. On the page in the trial bundle, only Ms Burki’s review and two others are shown. Each review is given a star rating from one to 5, and the number 3.9 indicates, as I understand it, that the average star rating over the eight reviews is just under 4 stars. I have not been told whether Ms Burki’s review was one of those visible on the first page of the reviews or whether it appeared lower down.
3. Ms Burki’s review (‘the Google review’) gave 70/30 one star only, and consisted of the words that follow. The words complained of and alleged to be defamatory of 70/30 are underlined.
A scam, no database, clients use to finance the lifestyle of founder, without consideration for results or even ambition to achieve such, huge employee turnover, four in six months alone, possibly five
4. As far as the Google review is concerned, Ms Burki has therefore not proved that 70/30 lacked the means or intention to operate an effective matchmaking service, let alone that it was engaged in a fraudulent scheme to extract money from its clients for the benefit of its founder. In my view the defamatory allegations made in the Google review (the word ‘scam’ apart) are allegations of fact.
5. It is not wholly clear whether or not the defendant intended to argue that the word ‘scam’ was an expression of opinion. At paragraph 10 of the Defence, as supplemented by the further information, that did appear to be her case; but at paragraph 14, as supplemented by the further information, it was not included in the case on honest opinion. I shall proceed on the basis that it was defended as an expression of opinion. In my judgment, it was an expression of honest opinion to the effect that 70/30’s business model is essentially fraudulent. However, it was based on the facts which were untrue.
6. The defences of truth and honest opinion therefore fail as far as the Google review is concerned.
Tereza Burki was ordered to pay £5000 in damages.
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUSTICE QUEEN'S BENCH DIVISION
MEDIA AND COMMUNICATIONS LIST SITTING AT THE WINCHESTER LAW COURTS
His Honour Judge Richard Parkes QC (Sitting as a Judge of the High Court) 17 September 2018
BETWEEN:
SEVENTY THIRTY LIMITED
Claim No:HQ17D00323
Claimant
and
TEREZA BURKI
Defendant
THE INJUNCTION
PENAL NOTICE
This order prohibits you TEREZA BURKI from doing the acts set out in the order. If you TEREZA BURKI disobey this order you may be held to be in contempt of court and may be imprisoned, fined or have your assets seized.
Any other person who knows of this order and does anything which helps or permits TEREZA BURKI to breach the terms of this order may also be held to be in contempt of court and may be imprisoned, fined or have their assets seized.
THE INJUNCTION
1. Tereza Burki shall not print , circulate, dis tribute, publish online or otherwise publish any statements to the effect that
Seventy Thirty Limited is a fraudulent business or a scam: or that
Seventy Thirty Limited has no database;
or any similar defamatory statements about Seventy Thirty Limit d or its business.
VARIATION OR DISCHARGE OF THIS ORDER
2. Anyone served with or notified of this order may apply to the court at any time to vary or discharge this order (or so much of it as affects that person), but they must first inform Seventy Thirty Limited' s solicitors. If any evidence is to be relied upon in support of the application, the substance of it must be communicated in writing to Seventy Thirty Limited's solicitors in advance.
3. Tereza Burki must not do the acts in paragraph 1 above her self or in any other way. Tereza Burki must not do the acts through others acting on her behalf or on her instructions or with her encouragement
4. It is a contempt of court for any person notified of this order knowingly to assist in or permit a breach of this order. Any person doing so may be imprisoned, fined or have their assets seized.